What does a nation state refer to? National state. Modern national countries

A special type of state, characteristic of the modern world, in which the government has power over a certain territory, the majority of the population are citizens who feel themselves to be part of a single nation. Nation states originated in Europe, but in the modern world they are spread globally.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Nation state

nation-state), public territory an education that has the status of a state with appropriately defined borders (self-determination), and the people living in it are united in self-identification based on common culture, history, race, religion and language and consider themselves a nation. N.g. forms a single and sovereign political community, the authorities of which are formed by the majority of us. recognized as legitimate (legitimacy). Almost all states, in order to cultivate a sense of nationalism. participation use, although not always successfully, symbols, rituals, shrines, the education system, the media and weapons. strength. N.g. are a subject of international law on the basis of mutual recognition and membership in international. org-tions, for example. UN. However, after the collapse of the columns, the plural border system. state-in were carried out artificially, without taking into account ethnicity. and religions, characteristics that led to the inevitable division of us. on base and minorities. In such formations the likelihood of conflicts is very high.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

The ethnic picture of the world at the beginning of the 21st century remains motley and contradictory. There are over two thousand different ethno-national entities in the world, and about 200 UN member states. Some of them are predominantly mononational (Austria - 92.5% of Austrians, Norway - 99.8% of Norwegians, Japan - 99% of Japanese), in where a small proportion of representatives of other nations live Dods, others are multinational, uniting a number of indigenous ethnic groups and national groups (Iraq, Spain, Russia, etc.); the third - mainly the states of the equatorial part of the planet - consist mainly of tribal formations.

The problem of connections between nation and state has long been a subject of study and debate. F. Engels found an internal connection between the nation and the state. K. Kautsky believed that the classic form of organization of national life is the nation state. But since all the “classical forms” often exist only as a model, which does not always achieve full implementation, in practice not all nations enjoy their statehood. M. Weber considered the ideal combination of a national and state community in which their coinciding interests are realized. One of the first to point out that the Ukrainian ethnic group will become sovereign only when it has its own statehood was N. Kostomarov.

A nation (Latin - tribe, people) - historically arises in a certain territory as an economic, spiritual and political community of people with their specific consciousness and psychological characteristics, traditions. Modern nations arose as a result of the formation of market relations. The most important factors in the consolidation of people into a nation, their rapprochement and communication were commodity production and trade. Only with the formation of the world market did commodity-money relations acquire a universal character and became the basis for the destruction of the patriarchal-communal and feudal way of life, the formation of ethno-political communities as a global phenomenon. This process covers the period of the 16th - 20th centuries. For the 20th century characterized by the further collapse of colonial empires and the formation of national states in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

In Europe, earlier than on other continents, national movements arose and a system of nation states emerged. In the middle of the 19th century. The state of ethnic movements and the formation of national states can be divided into the following groups:

1. post-integration, forming one whole (British, Russian, Austrians, French, Swedes, Danes, Landers), and the countries dependent on them;
2. pre-integration, close to unification or liberation from dependence (Germans, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese);
3. integrated into foreign political structures while maintaining a certain integrity (Irish, Norwegians, Belgians and those that were part of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires);
4. disintegrated - divided between states (Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, etc.).

In terms of scale and consequences, the level of disintegration of Ukrainians was the highest. Only the internal disintegration of empires created the conditions for their unification in a single state. Some of the peoples mentioned above are still fighting for political self-determination today. But in general, the relationship between the formation of a nation and a state is obvious. Nations, by self-determination, become the basis for the legitimation of statehood, the creation of viable economic systems and socio-cultural institutions.

The emergence and development of a national state is impossible without the majority of its citizens having a subconscious idea that would unite the country's population into a nation. /The national idea turns the people, inspired by it, into the creator of their historical destiny, into a guideline for the future.] When the population is deprived of such an idea, then the nation sleeps and remains in the state of an ethnic group that cannot lay claim to political self-determination and stable statehood. The national idea reflects the whole complex of problems of self-affirmation of the nation, its rights and freedoms, and the people feel their internal unity, the connection of generations and traditions, and see the prospects for their activities. The highest manifestation of such an idea, according to J. Bell, is the people’s understanding of the ideal structure of social life and their own state. Then it will become an internal incentive for political activity, and the external one will be the national state, ensuring the sovereignty and social progress of the nation as a political community. M. Grushevsky, M. Drahomanov, S. Dnistryansky, V. Ligashsky, I. Franko saw the need to translate the Ukrainian national idea into state building.

The idea of ​​a "sovereign nation", or "political nation", was born of the French Revolution, when the so-called third estate, which made up the majority of the French population, won civil rights for itself. At the same time, a “state” concept of a political nation was formed, according to which the concept of “representative of the nation” was identified with the concept of “citizen of a sovereign state.” “A political nation is a community that, along with an ethnocultural essence, also has a legal and state structure” (G. Setton-Watson). It is this understanding of the nation that is most common in economically developed countries, where nation states arose relatively earlier. An important role in their formation was played by the people's awareness of their national and socio-economic rights, by realizing which they brought their countries to the forefront of world progress. Accordingly, a feeling of patriotism was formed, according to which a citizen defends his homeland, and it guarantees him personal security and other universal rights. In the national-state idea, as we see, the need for the existence of a national state is clearly visible. However, in what direction should it develop and is the connection with the nation maintained? History knows examples when, under certain circumstances, a state can evolve with the priority of the national or class - to totalitarianism, and when in the national the universal remains leading - to a democratic, legal state.

In the political science concepts of F. Hegel, M. Weber, V. Lipinsky, the idea of ​​a nation state arises as a complement to the idea of ​​a legal state. The liberal idea, while justifying the equality of human civil rights, does not resolve the issue of equality of rights of each ethnic group, in particular the right to its state self-determination. The national idea differs from the liberal one in that it seeks to solve not only the problem of legal equality of people of different nationalities, but also the issue of equality of nations, understood as their right to independent political development.

It is significant that where the idea of ​​a nation state is combined with the concepts of liberal-demo democratic perspective and the rule of law, the progress of society is obvious (North America, Scandinavian countries). The nation state in this version has proven its advantage. Empires will sink into oblivion, and “non-historical peoples” for whom their ideologists predicted death (Nietzsche, Marx, Dontsov) create their own states, the number of which is growing. In other words, the national state, which ensures ethnonational unity and political stability of society, guarantees the development of market relations, freedom and equality of interethnic relations in its political field, cannot but at the same time be a rule of law state that protects the interests of man, his rights and freedoms.

In modern society, with the priority of universal human values, the decisive role is played not by classes, but by political nations as communities. There are no other effective ways to modernize society outside of the national one (N. Berdyaev), and this applies to both the countries of the so-called “third world” and post-socialist ones. Even in conditions when the country is torn apart by class contradictions and civil wars, the nation, as an ethnic community, remains, uniting people around its national idea. The conquest of independence by an ethnic group means its formation into a nation-state. The German sociologist F. Heckermann argues that the nation state forms an ethnocommunity, which has “not so much a common origin as a commonality of value ideas (orientation), institutions and political beliefs.”

Therefore, the nation-state is a form of political organization where the political-civil and ethnic identities of people are combined. It “was formed by the corresponding nation living compactly in a certain territory as a result of its exercise of the fundamental right to political self-determination, which provides the necessary conditions for the preservation and development of the heritage of this nation and the enrichment and development of all nations, ethnic groups living in this state” [Mala encyclopedist! I of ethnopower knowledge. - K., 1996. - P. 539]. However, with the formation and development of national states, the problems of national relations do not lose their relevance.

A nation state is a state formed by an ethnos (nation) on the basis of an ethnic territory and embodying the political independence and independence of the people. The theoretical and ideological basis of such a state was the principle of nationality, under the flag of which the economically and politically strengthened bourgeoisie fought against outdated feudalism. The desire to create a national state is largely explained by the fact that preserving the socio-economic (or ultimately ethnic) integrity of a nation is possible only if it is within the framework of one state. The formation of a national state most of all satisfies these requirements of social development and is therefore a priority of any national movement.

Nation states usually developed in conditions where the formation of nations and the formation of the state occurred simultaneously, and therefore political boundaries most often coincided with ethnic ones. Thus, the states of Western Europe and Latin America arose. This was typical and normal for the capitalist period of development. Since in the countries of Western Europe, where the formation of nations began for the first time in history, this process coincided with the emergence and centralization of states that emerged in territories with a predominantly ethnically homogeneous population, the term “nation” itself acquired a political meaning here - the belonging of people to one, “national” ", to the state. The principle of “one nation - one state” began to be promoted in Europe during the French Revolution. In Europe, there has long been a view that the nation state is the optimal model for organizing society. National states have developed here in the form of a monarchy, parliamentary and presidential republics.

After the First World War, on the initiative of US President Woodrow Wilson, the principle of “one nation, one state” was applied in Central and Eastern Europe. The borders of new countries are cut along national lines. This helped remove many previous contradictions, but gave rise to new ones. The fundamental difficulty of successfully applying such an approach is that even if one attempts to objectively define the dividing lines between nations, it is impossible to do so consistently. There are almost no ethnically homogeneous areas that would not mix in a significant part of their border or deep territories with other national borders, which, being enclosed within the borders of another national state, would not turn into national minorities. Thus, the division of the Ottoman Empire and the collapse of the Habsburg Empire in Europe were marked by the creation of small states, the process of fragmentation into which was called “Balkanization”, and with a negative meaning.

The states of Europe and other continents within the borders that we know were formed over several centuries. Most of them became mononational. In this regard, the term “nation” itself acquired a political meaning - the belonging of people to one “national” state. In this case, the term “nation” is used in a statist sense and refers to states that arose according to the principle of “one nation - one state.” Consequently, the concept of “nation - state” is valid only for mononational states.

The national state creates the necessary conditions for the economic, social, cultural progress of the people, for the preservation of the national language, traditions, customs, etc. Therefore, the creation of its own statehood is the desired goal of every ethnic group. However, all ethnic groups cannot realize this goal. This requires at least two conditions: compactness of residence and large numbers.

In this regard, the question of whether statehood is an obligatory, necessary feature of a nation has been discussed more than once in the scientific literature. Most researchers think not. In practice, when classifying a particular ethnic community as a nation, special importance is often attached to the presence of its own state. This is largely explained by the fact that preserving the socio-economic (and ultimately ethnic) integrity of a nation is possible only if it is within the framework of one state. However, “one’s own” state is far from being a mandatory feature of a nation. History knows many examples of the presence of several nations within one state. The Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian empires included various nations that did not have their own statehood. It is also known that the Polish nation was deprived of its statehood for a long time, but did not cease to be a nation.

In modern conditions, the concept of “national state” is used in two meanings.

Firstly, to designate states with an absolute majority of ethnically homogeneous population. Such national states include Japan, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Greece, Poland, Hungary, France, most Arab and Latin American countries, where representatives of the titular nation make up 90 percent or more of the population of these states.

Secondly, The concept of a national state is also used in relation to those states where, in addition to the titular nation, significant groups of other ethnic entities live. However, historically, a state was formed in this territory, bearing the name of the largest ethnic group settled in this territory. Among such states are Romania, Sweden, Finland, Syria, Iraq, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, etc. Due to the growth of interstate migration and the multiethnicity of the population, the number of such nation states will gradually increase.

It should be noted that in the Russian Federation, the state-forming nation - Russians - makes up 82% of the population; it does not belong to the category of national states, but is a multinational state. It's connected With the fact that on the territory of Russia, in addition to Russians, dozens of indigenous peoples live, many of whom formed nations here and have their own national statehood, being part of the Russian Federation. Therefore, Russia is the ethnic territory of many non-Russian peoples, who together with the Russians constitute a multinational people.

After the October Revolution, most of the peoples living on the territory of the Russian Empire created various forms of national-state formations and national states. Moreover, the forms of national statehood chosen by ethnic groups did not remain unchanged: they were improved and developed. Most peoples have moved from the original lower form to a higher form of national statehood. For example, the Kyrgyz ethnic group in a short period went from an autonomous region to a union republic within the USSR.

According to the Constitution of 1977, there were 53 national states and national-state formations in the USSR: 15 union republics, 20 autonomous republics, 8 autonomous regions and 10 autonomous okrugs. In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993, the Russian Federation includes 21 republics (national states), some of them are binational, for example, Kabardino-Balkaria, and even multinational (Dagestan); one autonomous region and 10 autonomous okrugs. Virtually all republics and national-state formations are multi-ethnic. Therefore, the republics within the Russian Federation are bearers of statehood not only of the “titular” nation, but also of the entire multi-ethnic people of a given republic, citizens of all nationalities living on their territory.

This is a complex phenomenon that consists of three interrelated elements:

Forms of government;

Territorial structure;

Forms of government regime.

Types of forms of government depending on the presence of sovereignty among the subjects of the state:

- Simple forms a: unitary state. A unitary state is a simple state that consists of administrative territorial units that do not have sovereignty, or a state that is not divided into administrative territorial units (Singapore, Malta);

- Complex shape: confederation and federation. A confederation is a temporary union of several states possessing sovereignty (USSR). A federation is a complex state consisting of sovereign state entities (Russian Federation).

Commonwealths and interstate associations cannot be considered forms of government.

Policy

One of the forms of state in antiquity was the polis. The polis was a state association of landowners who were engaged in various industries.

The polis is a people's state-city, whose citizens had property rights, socio-economic and political rights. The polis consisted of two parts: the center and the chora, an agricultural area adjacent to the center.

The political system in the policies was very diverse: democracy, monarchy, oligarchy. The highest power in democratic cities belonged to the people's assembly, in oligarchic cities - to the census assembly, in monarchical cities - to the monarch.

Nation

A nation is a large group of people who are united by cultural, political, socio-economic and spiritual commonality.

A nation can be viewed in two ways: as a group of people who are citizens of one state, and as an ethnic community of people with a common language and similar identity.

The nation is divided into two varieties: monoethnic And multiethnic. Nowadays, monoethnic Nazis are extremely rare, and mainly in remote countries, for example, in Iceland.

Often, a nation is created on the basis of many ethnic groups, which due to historical circumstances were brought together in one territory. The concept of “nation” appeared not so long ago - at the beginning of the 18th century, and was finally entrenched in society during the French Revolution.

State - nation

The nation state is a constitutional type of state. A nation state expresses the form of organization and self-determination of a nation that lives on the territory of the state itself. The national character of the state is always enshrined in constitutions.

The nation state has the right of monopoly on the use of force within its territory, as well as on the formulation of mandatory rules. The basis of the nation-state is the recognition of all citizens as a single nation, with a common culture, history and language.

TO consider this issue, we should apparently proceed from the fact that the state as a political institution is called upon to maintain the internal and external stability of the community on the basis of which it arose and developed. In this regard, it is important to clarify the concept of a nation state, since different interpretations of this concept can also determine different directions of state ethnopolitics.

In the textbook “Ethnology”, authored by G.T. Tavadov, a fairly common, albeit deeply erroneous, definition of a national state is given: “A national state is a state formed by an ethnos (nation) on the basis of an ethnic territory and embodying the political independence and independence of the people.” In this case, the author essentially equates the “ethnos” (ethnic community) with the nation, and therefore it turns out that there are “national” states and there are those that cannot be considered national. Meanwhile, all modern states are national, because they are built on the basis of the nation’s sovereign right to self-determination, and it is civil, not ethnic communities, that have such a right. And a nation-state is a territorial community, all members of which, regardless of their ethnicity, recognize their community, are in solidarity with it and obey the institutionalized norms of this community.

In addition to the postulate that there is a national state, for the purposes of ethnopolitical analysis it is necessary to determine another important position: what is the ethnic component in state building, i.e. what is a mono-ethnic state and what is a multi-ethnic state.

In world practice, a state in which 95% of the population or more are representatives of one ethnic tradition is considered to be monoethnic. But there are very few such states in the world (Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Albania, Armenia, Malta, Jamaica, Yemen, Hungary); in the vast majority of countries, the population contains several or even many ethnic groups. The heterogeneity of the ethnic composition of the population, combined with religious and racial differences, confronts state institutions with the task of integrating a multi-ethnic society, developing a national ideology and values ​​that cement the foundations of the state.

Each state solves this problem in its own way. The United States has long been dominated by the idea of ​​a “melting pot.” Researchers and politicians imagined American society as such a cauldron, in which heterogeneous ethnic and racial components formed an alloy called the American nation.

By and large, Soviet ideologists had a similar idea, according to whom, in the USSR, from numerous socialist nations, through “flourishing and rapprochement,” a “new historical community of people” called the “Soviet people” emerged. This people was declared a typologically new community for the reason that it was characterized by internationalism and all this was called “multinationality.” In world science, law and politics, “multinational (or transnational) corporations are known, “multinational armed forces” are known, and “multinational” has always meant transstate entities or connections. In fact, when translated into common language, it was about multi-ethnicity. It is no coincidence that in Soviet and post-Soviet times the concepts of “national” and “multinational” were translated from Russian as “ethnic” or “multi-ethnic”. Thus, the concept “national” was given exclusively ethnic content. A quote from Tavadov’s textbook is a clear confirmation of this. In fact, the Soviet people were not a new, but an old historical community, known since the time of M.V. Lomonosov, N.M. Karamzin and A.S. Pushkin as “the Russian people” or “Russians”. In the 18th century even the Russian language was called the Russian language.

In contrast to the American and Soviet models, which define the complex integrity of the population according to the state (the American nation and the Soviet multinational people), there are models of the nation state in which the main role in the formation of the nation is given to the ethnic group. Thus, in modern Latvia, the assistant to the prime minister for national security officially declares that “the Russian community does not fit into the concept of the national Latvian state.” An attempt by the dominant ethnic group to declare itself as a state nation and consolidate this thesis in ideology and in its legal status leads to the formation of a so-called ethnocratic state. Ethnocratic ideology is characteristic of African states, and it is used especially widely during the formation of states.

An ethnocratic state should be understood as a state in which an ethnic group, dominant numerically or politically, enjoys power and privileges in relation to others, it identifies exclusively with the state, denying minorities the right to membership in the nation or to independent “nation building”. In this case, the dominant ethnic group positions itself, through state ideology and state institutions (directly or indirectly), as the only “true,” “real,” “real” nation and demands that representatives of other ethnic groups be culturally equal to it. This state model is sometimes called constitutional nationalism. It aims to cement the ethnic majority and reject or isolate unwanted ethnic or racial minorities (prominent examples of this are the apartheid regime in South Africa, as well as the constitutional foundations of the post-Soviet state).

The regime of constitutional nationalism can be relatively soft and extremely harsh. In the latter case, it completely denies the rights of certain groups of the population. Thus, in the Central African state of Burundi, the Tutsi ethnic group has occupied a dominant position for many centuries, which was made their privileged ally by German colonists before the First World War (Tutsis were overseers on banana and tea plantations), and then they were used for the same purposes by the Belgians, beginning in 1972 repressive actions against the Hutus with the aim of reducing the number of the latter, and, if possible, their complete physical destruction. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people were killed. Moreover, the conditions for the conflict began to mature long before it began, because the practice of separating communities began at school: Hutu and Tutsi children were separated: some sat in one corner of the classroom, others in the other. Before the outbreak of active confrontation, marriages between Hutus and Tutsis were not a rare occurrence. The first massacre was stopped as a result of protests from the world community; but the ethnocratic idea turned out to be stronger than the voice of the world community, and in 1988, clashes between Hutus and Tutsis resumed.

But the largest ethnic civil war of the late 20th century, associated with the confrontation between the Hutus and Tutsis, took place in neighboring Rwanda in 1994. About one million people died then. This confrontation serves as a clear example of African political tribalism. By the time the Rwandan authorities provoked the massacre of the Tutsi, the latter’s position had already been significantly weakened.

At the end of the 1950s. During the decolonization process, the Hutus began to actively demand the transfer of power to the majority (the Hutus made up 85% of the country's population). In 1959, the first clashes between communities occurred. In 1962, presidential elections in Rwanda were held for the first time, as a result of which the Hutus took leading political positions in the country. Large-scale oppression of the Tutsi began, which provoked them to fight to regain their lost positions. This struggle resulted in a series of attacks on government institutions and subsequent massacres of Tutsis. On the territory of Uganda, refugees from Rwanda formed the Rwandan Patriotic Front, which fought for the reform of public administration in Rwanda and the division of political power between the main ethnic communities. In 1990, the RPF launched a major offensive and approached the capital, Kigali. In turn, the central government declared all Tutsis living in Rwanda to be collaborators of the RPF, and Hutu who sympathized with the struggle for Tutsi rights - traitors. The attack on the capital with the help of France was repulsed, but a large-scale guerrilla war unfolded in the country. In the summer of 1993, representatives of the warring parties in Tanzania reached an agreement on ceasefire and the beginning of the process of democratic change in Rwanda However, the country's President Habyarimana was in no hurry to implement the agreements and STARTED to form a people's militia in the country whose number reached 30 thousand people. They were armed mainly with machetes, which they then used to kill Tutsis.

UN peacekeeping forces stationed in the country informed the organization's leadership about the impending ethnic cleansing, but Canadian General Romeo Dallaire was ordered not to intervene in the situation. On April 6, 1994, the plane carrying the presidents of Burundi and Rwanda was shot down by a missile (according to one version, it was launched by radical Hutus). The death of President Habyarimana signaled the beginning of the extermination of the Tutsi. At the same time, all the Hutu politicians and journalists who called for dialogue were the first to be killed. The Hutu armed forces, together with the army, systematically exterminated the Tutsis wherever they were found. In the first two weeks, 250 thousand people were killed. The country's radio stations played the role of coordinators of ethnic cleansing, calling for pogroms and providing information about Tutsi locations. It was reported on air that the Tutsi lands would be given to those Hutus who would destroy them.

UN peacekeepers did not interfere with what was happening during the entire period of the pogroms, and a significant part of them, on the instructions of their governments, left the country. One of the most dramatic episodes of this conflict is associated with the departure of the Belgian peacekeepers. In one of the schools in Kigali, which they guarded, two thousand Tutsis who had escaped during the pogroms were hiding. After the Belgians received orders to abandon the school building, the abandoned people were killed by the Rwandan military. In the outback, people were killed even in church buildings where they came to seek refuge. These events became the backdrop against which the events of Gilles Courtemanche’s novel “A Sunday Afternoon by the Pool in Kigali” and its screen version unfold. Then the confrontation between the Hutu and Tutsi spread to the territory of the Congo, where a huge number of refugees representing both ethnic groups moved.

An example of an “inverted ethnocracy” is Sri Lanka. Historically, it was inhabited by Sinhalese who practiced Buddhism. With the arrival of the British and the creation of vast tea plantations, significant groups of Hindu Tamils ​​began to move to the island from the Hindustan Peninsula, who settled mainly in the north of the island and worked on tea plantations. Although the Sinhalese were numerically superior, the British favored the Tamils, who therefore occupied the most prestigious positions in the colonial administration and bureaucracy. After independence in 1947, the Tamils ​​were gradually displaced from key positions in the state apparatus by the Sinhalese. Then the Sinhalese began to settle in territories that had previously been perceived exclusively as Tamil, other measures were taken to strengthen the position of the Sinhalese, and finally the Sinhalese language was declared the only state language of the country, and Buddhism the constitutional religion. The Tamils ​​felt disadvantaged and a protest movement grew among them, which escalated into the 1980s. into a guerrilla war under the slogan of creating an independent Tamil state in northern Sri Lanka. As a result of enormous efforts, government troops managed to break the main centers of Tamil resistance, but the conflict has not yet been completely overcome. The Tamils ​​complain about pogroms and infringements of their rights, the Sinhalese see open separatism in the Tamil protest movement and nothing more.

In recent years, the concept of the nation state has come under double pressure: on the one hand, it is weakening under the pressure of transnational institutions, the system of international law and globalization processes; on the other hand, the state, as a form of social organization of society, experiences the pressure of ethnopolitical movements and is forced to confront the challenges of politicized ethnicity. Moreover, these challenges arise where the processes of intrastate integration, the development of democratic institutions and civil society, it would seem, have gone so far that they exclude the possibility of the emergence of ethnopolitical movements and the actualization of the ideas of ethnic nationalism.

However, in modern Europe, where efforts were made to develop national minorities and where the principles of the inviolability of state borders after the Second World War were repeatedly confirmed by state leaders and interstate agreements, at the end of the 20th century, the third wave of nationalism arose in the past century. It is often associated with the third geopolitical redistribution of the world, which was a consequence of the end of the Cold War, caused by the confrontation between two social systems. To some extent this is true, but ethnopolitical movements in Europe became actualized before the collapse and liquidation of the socialist Eastern Bloc. For example, Ulster “exploded” in 1969, when no one in the world could have imagined that the Soviet Union would collapse. The October crisis of 1970 in Quebec, where prominent politicians were killed by Quebec separatists, shocked Canada. In continental Europe, the most problematic character by the 1960s. acquired the ethnopolitical problems of Belgium. For more than a century, this country developed under the complete dominance in political and cultural life of one ethnic group - the Walloons. French was the only official language of the country. The French-speaking provinces were the most developed economically, and the basis of the financial bourgeoisie and the Brussels bureaucracy were Francophones. It is no coincidence that the Flemings supported Germany during the First World War, hoping for the latter's help in creating an independent state.

A television “prank” organized by Belgium's French-language state channel in December 2006, which announced that Flanders had announced its secession from the Kingdom of Belgium, was taken seriously by a huge number of the country's citizens, indicating the fragility of relations between the communities.

Among the crisis regions of Europe in the second half of the 20th century were not only Ulster and Belgium, but also the Basque Country and Catalonia in Spain, Val d'Aosta and South Tyrol, Lombardy in Italy, Corsica and Brittany in France. Today it is on the verge of collapse not even Belgium, but Great Britain, because Scottish nationalism is strengthening and supporters of an independent Scotland are close to becoming the politically dominant force in the Scottish Parliament, and the referendum on independence itself may take place in the coming years. Separatist movements are now popular in many European countries. All of them have an "ethnic" justification, their inspirers proceed from the opposition of their ethnic groups to the rest of the population. By its nature, ethnicity is concentrated mainly in the sphere of culture and does not imply the presence of a political program or concept. But under certain conditions it can perform a political function.